The United States has chosen, for better or far more likely for worse, to subordinate the civilian economy to its military sector. It is often argued that the spin offs from military research, development and production are a net benefit to the civilian economy, but this is as transparently false in America as it was in the Soviet Union. It is a sad commentary on politics that hardly ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union the supposed victor, America, has a prison population that rivals Stalin�s. Just as ironically, American strategic thinkers have based their long-term objectives on technological (read computer and information technology) superiority. Yet the fact is that much if not most of that supply chain is outside the United States in Asia. In fact, it is within a few square miles of Taiwan, and in easy missile range of the mainland or North Korea. The logic of globalisation thus means that America�s military frontier is not the West Coast of the United States but the east coast of Asia and the central Asian borders of the world�s excess oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.
When one considers the current Middle East crisis against this backdrop, the divisions on the UN Security Council are much easier to understand. It is also clear that the potential for escalation is very great. It is difficult to imagine the American government deciding to back down, for the simple reason that its long-term choices in that eventuality are the most difficult to take, depending as they do on a fundamental change in priorities. Far better, you can hear the Neo-cons whisper (or more in character, shout) to strike now and get control of the oil before Europe consolidates, before Russia recovers, and before China and Taiwan reunite.
Sanders Research Associates March 3, 2002
